Back
1995 Supreme(Gau) 67
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Prasanta Kumar Bose -Appellant
Versus
Md Nuruddin -Respondent
Civil Revision No. 181 of 1994
Decided On : 24-03-1995
T.Islam, K.A.Majumdar, H.R.A.Choudhary, C.K.Sharma Barua, B.K.Goswami, A.Begum
In a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, the landlord must establish that he genuinely and honestly requires the premises for his own use and that he has no other suitable accommodation available.
Headnote:
EVICTION SUIT - BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT - JURISDICTION - REVISION - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, Section 5(1)(c).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from a house on the grounds of default and bonafide requirement. The trial court and appellate court found that the defendant was not a defaulter and that the plaintiff genuinely required the house for his own use. The defendant filed a revision petition challenging the findings of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the finding of bonafide requirement by the lower courts was based on conjecture and surmise and was not a finding in the eye of law. The Court also held that the plaintiff did not have a bonafide requirement for the house as he had subsequently let out a room that he had obtained possession of.
Issues: 1. Whether the finding of bonafide requirement by the lower courts was based on conjecture and surmise? 2. Whether the plaintiff had a bonafide requirement for the house?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the finding of bonafide requirement by the lower courts was based on conjecture and surmise because the courts did not consider the evidence and the finding was not supported by the facts of the case. 2. The High Court held that the plaintiff did not have a bonafide requirement for the house because he had subsequently let out a room that he had obtained possession of.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, quashed the judgment and decree of the lower courts, and dismissed the suit.
2. The opposite party as plaintiff instituted TS No. 132 of 1990 for eviction of the defendant from a house situated within Silchar Municipality on two ground : (1) on the ground of default; (2) that the house was required by the plaintiff i.e. on the ground of bonafide requirement. Both the Courts below found that the defendant was not a defaulter. So, the only ground which now survive for consideration is the ground of bonafide requirement. Another point which was raised in the written statement by the defendant is as follows :
"That the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff alone has no locus standi to file this suit. AH the heirs of late Ismail Mia, Ibrahim Mia and brother and sister of the plaintiff are necessary parties in this suit. In the absence of whom the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. All the heirs of late Nepal Chandra Bose are necessary parties in this suit.'' ".... ...this suit without impleading the heirs of late Nepal Chandra Bose as parties in this suit. The suit of this present nature is not maintainable."
3. This point of non-joinder was also found by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff. The pleadings regarding bonafide requirement is mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. A portion of which is quoted below :
"... ...The plaintiff is now doing the business of selling cassette by sitting in the passage which runs from the residential house of the plaintiff to the PWD Road. The father of the plaintiff had two other brothers viz; Ismail and Ishak and each of them got in their share equally of the shop house situated by the side of the PWD Road. The plaintiff got the northern portion and heirs of Ismail got rooms on the south of the rooms of the plaintiff and south of this room is the passage to the PWD Road, where the plaintiff is now selling cassette. Out of 3 rooms of the plaintiff 2 rooms are the suit house and the northern most room of the plaintiff is in occupation (of SM Enterprises. As the plaintiff requires the suit houses for his business for maintaining his family, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the house to enable the plaintiff to do business for his livelihood but the defendant did not vacate the house...."
"...... the plaintiff bonafide requires the house for this own business...... the defendant has a vacant house in south of the building of Shri P. Das Advocate."
4. No. issue on bonafide requirement was framed by the Courts below, but that aspect to the matter was considered by the Courts below in deciding issue Nos.4 and 5. The issue Nos. 4 and 5 are as follows :
Issue No. 4 : Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from he suit property ?
Issue No. 5 : To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to ?
5. Section 5 (1) (c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 provides as follows:
"5. Bar against passing and execution of decree and orders for ejection.(1)
(c) Where the house is bonafide required by the landlord either for purpose of repairs or re-building, or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held, or where the landlord can show any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court."
6. In paragraph 12 of this revision it is stated as follows :
"That after the decree was passed against the petitioner, one room of the plaintiff opposite party which is adjacent to the house under occupation of SM Enterprises fell vacant as the tenant of that room Shri B. Pal vacated the room. The plaintiff/ opposite party instead of himself occupying the same let out the same to a Dentist Dr. Laskar."
7. In ground No. (xiii) it is stated as follows : "
